[Surrealplaces]

That's the part that's so crazy. The folks in the low density suburbs - what I would call the middle ring burbs, are the people so opposed to the density increase, but that's not where it's happening. I'm not sure those neighborhoods from the 60's-90's will ever get any kind of density infills.

IMO, we should continue with density upgrades where we can, but we also need to change the tax system so high density areas aren't paying subsidizing the low density neighborhoods of the 60's-90's era.

That's 100% what I would like to see as well. Some sort of mixture of taxes that are based on market value and also based on square footage of property or lot size. Neighborhoods like say Varsity Acres or Bonavista, Dalhousie, Canyon Meadows, etc are the poster children for sprawl, and those are the neighborhoods fighting the hardest against zoning density increases. If they aren't going to see any density increases maybe they can be team players and pay a bit extra in property tax?
The new subdivisions are doing their part, and in many cases are denser than some of the inner city neighborhoods, and of course the inner city neighborhoods are seeing increased density, but those neighborhoods from the 1950's through to the early 2000's aren't. That's where sprawl is at its worst, and those are the neighborhoods that aren't seeing any density increases, and probably won't.

 

[badc0ffee]

The folks in the low density suburbs - what I would call the middle ring burbs, are the people so opposed to the density increase, but that's not where it's happening.

There are definitely pockets here and there of 50s-60s neighbourhoods that would be full of infills and small multifamily if not for community opposition/restrictive covenants. One I can think of is Rutland Park - close to Currie/Garrison Green/MRU/BRT lines, but it's still one house per 50ft lot.

I can also imagine densification near some of the Red Line stations like Canyon Meadows, which is currently a 2 minute walk over a pedestrian bridge from mainly a bunch of 60s bungalows.

 

[Just build it]

There are a few areas in neighborhoods from the 50s and 60s, such as Northmount Drive, Centre Street, or Elbow Drive, where I could see some increased density but those neighborhoods are still a challenge compared to ones like Capitol Hill, Renfrew, Hillhurst, Killarney. The neighborhoods that are the biggest challenge are the ones from the 80's and 90's with the cul-de-sacs and no alleyways (Sandstone, Evergreen, Bonavista, Douglasdale, and so on). I mean no developer is ever going to bother doing H-GO in those neighborhoods. They'll always be the city's least efficient neighborhoods from a tax vs cost point of view.

 

[darwink]

Bonavista

Bonvista is neat due to the lake. Former resident here. The community is trying to figure out rules on sub divided properties and access to the lake. Right now if you add a suite the suite doesn’t receive lake access. Subdividing a lot, currently the first couple hundred will receive lake access and then the rest won’t as the lake association founding documents limit the number of lots with lake access and the area with lake access. Since Bonavista Downs ended up without lake access there are ‘extra’ lake accesses available.

It is a fight in the community to figure out how or whether to allocate new access. It might be advantageous to sell new access to fund capital improvements, but that might limit the Homeowners Association access to government grants. Kicking split lots out of the association (or only having 1 of the lots have access) likely would also rule out future grants.

Until that is figured out splitting a lot doesn’t make sense. I suspect the association would vote to raise fees to limit the number of lake users, which would make most lot splitting uneconomic. The lot value without lake access for each resulting lot is just too high relative to alternative neighbourhoods with similar amenities.

Personally I am in favour of a Houston style compromise to try to ‘contain’ NIMBY to neighbourhoods or smaller areas. A petition causes a vote, and if 60% of owners approve, zoning is locked down for 40 years. This in practice is approved in very few areas (10% of neighbourhoods in Houston iirc), as people can directly see their potential economic loss from the locked down zoning.

 

[Surrealplaces]

And that's fine. I don't think every neighborhood needs to be split up or density upzoned, and some are better left as is, as that's a choice that some people prefer. That said I think it would be more fair to reward the people living on smaller plots of land, whether inner city or in the new densely built burbs. I guess conversely it could be looked at as penalizing those living in the most lowest density neighborhoods. Either way, I think it needs to be more fair, and have some sort of encouragement for more density.